Elton Mayo

Elton Mayo: Focusing on Human Relations Elton Mayo (1880-1949), the “Father of the Human Relations Approach,” led the team which conducted a study at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Plant between 1927 and 1933 to evaluate the attitudes and psychological reactions of workers in on-the-job situations. The researchers and scholars associated with the Hawthorne experiments were Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, T.N. Whitehead and William Dickson. The National Research Council sponsored this research in cooperation with the Western Electric Company. The study was started in 1924 by Western Electric’s industrial engineers to examine the impact of illumination levels on worker productivity. Eventually the study was extended through the early 1930s. The experiments were conducted in four phases: a. Illumination experiments b. Relay assembly test room experiments c. Interview phase d.

Bank wiring observation room experiments

Page 14 Figure 2.3: Actual versus Expected Results for the Experimental and Control Groups in one of the Hawthorne Illumination Studies

* Lighting remained at the same level in the control group Source: Kathryn M Bartol and David C. Martin, Management (USA: Irwin McGraw-Hill, Third edition, 1998) 49. Illumination experiments These experiments, initiated by Western Electric’s industrial engineers, took place between 1924 and 1927. These experiments involved manipulating the illumination for one group of workers (called the experimental or test group) and comparing their subsequent productivity with the productivity of another group (the control group) for whom the illumination was not changed. The results of the experiments were ambiguous. For the test group, performance improved as the intensity of the light increased. The result was expected. However, the performance of the test group rose steadily even when the illumination for the group was made so dim that the workers could hardly see. To compound the

mystery, the control group’s productivity also tended to rise as the test group’s lighting conditions were altered, even though the control group experienced no changes in illumination (see Figure 2.3). Since there was a rise in performance in both groups, the researchers concluded that group productivity was not directly related to illumination intensity. Something besides lighting was influencing their performance. At this point of the Hawthorne Experiments, researchers from Harvard University, under the guidance of Elton Mayo, were invited to participate in conducting the next phase of experiments. Relay assembly test room experiments A second set of experiments took place between 1927 and 1933. In this phase, researchers were concerned about working conditions such as number of work hours, frequency and duration of rest periods. The researchers selected six women for the experiments. These women worked in the relay assembly test room, assembling a small device called an electrical relay. The participants were informed beforehand about the experiments. In the course of the experiments, a number of variables were altered in the room: wages were increased; rest periods of varying lengths were introduced; the duration of work was shortened. The workers were also granted certain privileges such as leaving their workstation without obtaining permission. These workers received special attention from the researchers and company officials.

Next >> Page 15 Generally, productivity increased over the period of the study, regardless of how the factors under consideration were manipulated. The Harvard University group ultimately concluded that better treatment of employees made them more productive. These experiments recognized the importance of social relations among participants. Since there was no formal supervisor (only the observer was present), the participants experienced more freedom and a feeling of importance because they were consulted on proposed changes. The researchers concluded that employees would work better if management were concerned about their welfare and supervisors paid special attention to them. One of the findings of the study was the identification of the concept which came to be described as the ‘Hawthorne effect.’ The Hawthorne effect is defined as the possibility that individuals picked up to participate in a study may show higher productivity only because of the added attention they receive from the researchers rather than any other factor being tested in the study. Interview phase During the course of the experiments, about 21,000 people were interviewed over a three-year period – between 1928 and 1930 – to explore the reasons for human behavior at work. All the employees in the Hawthorne plant were interviewed. The generalizations drawn from these interviews are given below: 1. A complaint is not necessarily an objective recital of facts; it can also be a symptom of personal disturbance, the cause of which may be

deep-seated. 2. Objects, persons and events carry social meaning. Their relation to employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction is purely based on the employee’s personal situation and how he perceives them. 3. The personal situation of the worker is a configuration of relationships. This configuration consists of a personal reference and a social reference. While personal reference pertains to a person’s sentiments, desires, and interests, social reference pertains to the person’s past and present interpersonal relations. 4. The position or status of the worker in the company is a reference from which the worker assigns meaning and value to the events, objects, and features of his environment, such as hours of work, wages etc. 5. The social organization of the company represents a system of values from which the worker derives satisfaction or dissatisfaction according to his perception of his social status and the expected social rewards. 6. The social demands of the worker are influenced by social experiences in groups both inside and outside the workplace.1[1] Bank wiring observation room experiments These experiments were undertaken by researchers to test some of the ideas they had gathered during the interviews. The experiments were conducted during 1931-1932. The fourteen participants in the experiment were asked to assemble telephone wiring to produce terminal banks. This time no changes were made in 1

the physical working conditions. In the Bank Wiring Observation Room experiments, workers were paid on the basis of an incentive pay plan, under which their pay increased as their output increased. Researchers observed that output stayed at a fairly constant level, which was contrary to their expectations. Their analysis showed that the group encouraged neither too much nor too little work. It seemed they had their own idea of what “a fair day’s work” was and enforced it themselves. The test room participants did not behave the way the ‘economic man model’ (this model states that employees are predominantly motivated by money) predicted. Group acceptance appeared to be more important to the worker than money. Thus, these experiments provided some insights into informal social relations within groups. 2[1]

Delbert C. Miller and William H. Form, ‘Industrial Psychology’ (New York: Harper and Row Publishers Inc, 1951) 58. Next >>

Page 16 Exhibit 2.3 Limitations of Human Relations Approach Human relations theory recognizes the significance of human resources. This theory believes that each individual is unique and the attitude and behavior of an employee determines the way he or she works. This theory is against the view that people respond 2

automatically to monetary stimulus. Human relations theory was one of the greatest advances in management, yet, it did not succeed in establishing new concepts. The limitations of the Human Relations theory are: • The Human Relations theorists are of the opinion that by removing fear, people would perform effectively. This view attacked the assumption that workers can be motivated to work only through fear. The Human Relations approach made a significant contribution at a time when it was generally being assumed that workers have to be coerced to work. Yet, this approach has very little to say about positive motivation. The positive motivation aspect has been generalized by the Human Relations theorists. • Human Relations theory does not provide enough focus on work. It emphasizes more on interpersonal relations and on “the informal group.” Consequently, this approach assumes that a worker’s attitudes, behavior and effectiveness is predominantly determined by his relation with his fellow-workers and not by the kind of work he does. • Human Relations does not understand the economic implications of organizational problems. Therefore, most of the principles advocated cannot be applied in the organizational context. Human Relations theory also tends to be very vague. It stresses on “giving the workers a sense of responsibility” but hardly tells

what their responsibilities are. Human Relations theory has made noteworthy contributions to the field of management. It provides valuable guidance in understanding the employees and managing them. This theory also states the importance of attitudes and behaviors in managing the workforce effectively. Human Relations is one of the foundations on which the building of management is to be built. Although this theory has given great insights, it has its limitations also. This theory focuses more on the informal group and is very vague about the positive motivation aspects. Adapted from Peter F. Drucker, The Practice of Management (New York: Harper Business, 1986) 278-280 Contributions of Hawthorne experiments The Hawthorne experiments, which laid the foundation for the Human Relations Movement, made significant contributions to the evolution of management theory. Some of the contributions are illustrated in Table 2.7. Criticism of Hawthorne studies The Hawthorne studies have received considerable criticism. They have been criticized on the following grounds: Next >> Table 2.7: Elton Mayo and the Hawthorne Studies Pre-judgments Findings Job performance depends on The group is the key factor the individual worker. in job performance. Fatigue is the main factor Perceived meaning and affecting output. importance of the work

determine output. Management sets production Workplace culture sets its standards. own production standards. Source: Louis E. Boone and David L. Kurtz, Management (USA: McGraw-Hill Inc., International Student Edition, 1992) 37. 1. The procedures, analysis of findings, and the conclusions reached were found to be questionable. Critics felt that the conclusions were supported by little evidence. 2. The relationship made between the satisfaction or happiness of workers and their productivity was too simplistic. 3. These studies failed to focus attention on the attitudes of employees at the workplace. Abraham Maslow